Don Terrill’s Speed-Talk

Warp Speed wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:04 pm Money always wins, be it tight rules or none at all.

Exactly!
Do a minimal rules deal, ci, compression, rpm and fuel and let the engine builder show what he is capable of.
Everyone will benefit from seeing the possibility from out of the box thinking.
How many people ever thought about dropping the combustion chamber prior to this years EMC?
How many that thought about it actually did it?

Warp Speed wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:04 pm Money always wins, be it tight rules or none at all.

It's like I told Greg, the person that's willing to spend more money, will always have an advantage. A good rules package is not designed to eliminate that advantage, but to greatly reduce it. In my 34 years of doing this, I have found that the simpler the rules, the better. Although it wouln't work for this competition, take the "stock stamped steel rocker arm" rule as an example. The guy spending twice as much on valvetrain development will have an advantage, but a small enough advantage, that a guy with less money, and a little more ingenuity could still beat him.

GARY C wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2017 12:50 pm Thats why my thought was to build according to a race with class rules like a lower level dirt track class and then have an open class with minimal rules.

That was my first thought, when discussing this.
Problem is, go to any lower level dirt track race, and see how many engine platforms are running competitively in it. Most of them are 90-100% SB Chevies. If you're lucky, you'll see 2 SB Fords, and maybe a SB Chrysler.

This competition is open to multiple engine platforms, with multiple CID's, and that's where the rules get tricky.
IMO, these engines are supposed to represent a high-end, street/strip engine, a paying customer would come in and order.
Be it a SB Chevy, for his 68 Camaro, an LS7 for his Corvette, a SB ford for her Mustang, or a 6.1L Hemi for a late model Dodge, Etc.
I think the way to make this even is to not have too many rules, and to focus on restrictions that these engine builders would have to deal with in real life, to make the customer happy. Like having to build an engine to run on the fuel, that's locally available, or like having to make sure it fits under the hood.

How about limiting open valve spring pressure? Be it flat tappet or roller. It wouldn't be too hard to check that afterwards.

plovett wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:46 pm How about limiting open valve spring pressure? Be it flat tappet or roller. It wouldn't be too hard to check that afterwards.

That wouldn't be difficult to police however, it would be a bear for the engine builder to control from his first test run at home to say run 40 at the contest.

Personally, I think a realistic "0" lash valve lift limit where flat tappet solid lifter camshafts are able to reach with under a 1.8/1 rocker arm ratio to still almost compete against solid roller lifter camshafts, which do have the ability to get a lot more lobe lift, could lessen that particular roller cam advantage somewhat however, certainly not completely make them even ... but, close.

plovett wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:46 pm How about limiting open valve spring pressure? Be it flat tappet or roller. It wouldn't be too hard to check that afterwards.

The guys with spintron money wound probably resort to this.
"Specifically designed for Lift Rule Applications where lobe lift is restricted • Unique new design launches the lifter off of the lobe for increased valve lift"
http://www.compcams.com/WhatsNew/NewsDe ... 1997070293

I like the racey engines. But please entertain an iron head class here and there. Would help us broke fellas play on a budget. I say budget but it’s all relative. Prolly run high test pump gas and very loose rules to make it cool. Unlimited single 4-bbl type stuff

C. Henderson

kid7755 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 8:29 pm I like the racey engines. But please entertain an iron head class here and there. Would help us broke fellas play on a budget. I say budget but it’s all relative. Prolly run high test pump gas and very loose rules to make it cool. Unlimited single 4-bbl type stuff

C. Henderson

Yeah a nostalgia muscle car class could be pretty interesting.

Some posters are concerned with cost to compete. The more rules and limits; the higher the costs.

steve316 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:47 pm Some posters are concerned with cost to compete. The more rules and limits; the higher the costs.

Most of the time but, not all the time.
It all depends upon what gets restricted as to whether or not it will cost more to be competitively legal.

Here's a hint that should not be a surprise to anyone: It's all in the "Heads".
Also, the following year (in addition to holding two or maybe three classes over two or three weeks) the idea is to keep the rules the same
from our first event in 2018. This way you know what it's going to take to win or place. Sort of like the record for the 100 yard dash keeps getting
broken because it's known what you have to keep working towards to break it.
The dialogue is getting better - keep it up.

Greg Finnican
Charlotte, NC
704 408-7356

I really liked the early Engine Masters Competitions where all engines had the same cubic inch limitation so, it was EASY for anyone to understand the power differences among them.
They pretty much stuck with the same rules; just changed the cubic inch requirements.

Max lift .750
Multiple carbs
Cast intake you can weld it
Heads have a valve angle rule like 9 degree for all heads and families. Weld and do any modifications you want but the heads have to be sold by summit.
Peak power half the score average the other half.
4000-7500rpm
Two classes 600cubic inch and 400cubic inch
I have other thoughts about the dyno rules itself but that can wait.

WeingartnerRacing wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 4:21 pm Max lift .750
Multiple carbs
Cast intake you can weld it
Heads have a valve angle rule like 9 degree for all heads and families. Weld and do any modifications you want but the heads have to be sold by summit.
Peak power half the score average the other half.
4000-7500rpm
Two classes 600cubic inch and 400cubic inch
I have other thoughts about the dyno rules itself but that can wait.

Are you aware that a stock O.E.M. produced Oldsmobile head has a 6 degree valve angle ...? Or a MEL Ford and "W" headed Chevrolet's are "0" degrees? Valve angle is not the way to limit it.

Limiting either the intake port floor, the port roof or horizontal centerline height location above the deck surface at the flange, might be a good way.

At present my concern is a set of rules that will allow even 8.2 deck SBF's to compete. This would mean setting the lower CID limit to about 350 inches.
This would allow 3.5 inch stroke 302's into the competition as well as the popular 383 SBC (remember there was talk of a 400 inch lower limit).
As far as the upper limit goes I am thinking 510 inches as that encompasses big block builds from Detroit produced engines.

I am concerned about valve train performance here but I do not like the idea of a fixed valve lift for all entries. This will favor small blocks and limit BB's. What we could do here is have a lift rule based on the intake valve diameter. If the lift is limited to say 32% of the intake valve the lift figures won't be so high as to make Spintron work any real advantage over a well specced valve train straight from the cam grinder.

DV